Comments on: Scientific Misinformationhttp://sites.bu.edu/ombs/2010/10/28/scientific-misinformation/
Sun, 04 May 2014 16:04:33 -0400hourly1http://wordpress.org/?v=4.1.1By: Eli Fredmanhttp://sites.bu.edu/ombs/2010/10/28/scientific-misinformation/comment-page-1/#comment-599
Fri, 29 Oct 2010 21:26:04 +0000http://blogs.bu.edu/ombs/?p=902#comment-599Okay, I just watched the video- and he does seem like a bit of a loon.

And I do agree that if you are unable to prove something as false than it is a moot point from the beginning since you cannot prove it as true either.

What I meant to say though, is that Dr. Hameroff is not the only one who holds this view. Many other academics (philosophers and scientists alike) seem to subscribe to the idea…. Though I do agree that sometimes science would be better off not trying to involve itself in matters of philosophy/theology (See Frank’s blog post on “Is-Ought contrast”)

]]>By: Guitchountshttp://sites.bu.edu/ombs/2010/10/28/scientific-misinformation/comment-page-1/#comment-598
Fri, 29 Oct 2010 03:47:32 +0000http://blogs.bu.edu/ombs/?p=902#comment-598These ideas are so attractive to mystics because they are untestable. You can speculate all you want, but there is no way to test the dualist hypothesis. If there is a soul, it has to be some kind of *thing*? Where is it? Is it dark matter? Quarks? Microtubules?

If there is no way to explain the mind without the soul, we should be looking for it. But if the soul is not required to explain the mind, then why invoke it? We’re not quiet ready to say how the mind emerges from neurons, but at least we have testable hypotheses when it comes to neurons. There are no testable hypotheses about the soul. Whether or not our inability to probe something means it doesn’t exist, I don’t know.

]]>By: Eli Fredmanhttp://sites.bu.edu/ombs/2010/10/28/scientific-misinformation/comment-page-1/#comment-597
Fri, 29 Oct 2010 00:04:32 +0000http://blogs.bu.edu/ombs/?p=902#comment-597I actually think that this idea is not so outlandish. I believe Prof. Takeo Watanabe (at BU) entertains an idea similar to this one.

If we can’t point to a certain brain structure and say “that is conciousness” than who is to say that “consciousness” is housed in the brain. Furthermore, who is to say that consciousness dies when the brain (and body) do. (These are Watanabe’s thoughts- not mine).